A question:
Could a new argument be brought forward on the basis that banks's have used Zero Percent offers on borrowings as a means to ensnare (trap) people into a cycle of debt.
That these institutions have not carried out adequate checks either in house, with the borrower concerned, nor with the Credit Reference Agency's to see if that person could afford the debt being offerred at Zero Percent.
And that having lent the money have failed to report to the Credit Reference Agency's a true and accurate position of that borrowers commitments, thereby allowing other firms to lend more money to the borrower - and at the same time permitting the borrower to roll-over that debt over and over again until a point is reached where charges are incurred either by over indebtedness or by change of circumstance such as illness of loss of job.
Whilst consumers must ultimately have responsibility for their own financial situation, there is a strong argument that consumers must be protected from the banks’ sharp practices of trapping them into a cycle of continuous excessive charges.
It should be noted that the above makes no reference to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the services provided in exchange. Such a ‘theme’ does not fall foul of the current interpretation of Regulation 6(2)(b)* and would permit a challenge under section 5 (1)** of the UTCCR Regulations where the onus (proof) would fall on the supplier (lender) to prove that this act was not unfair.
Such an attack being permitted on a European level.
Notes:
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations - Assessment of unfair terms
*6. (2) In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate-
(b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange.
** 5. (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded
as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant
imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the
detriment of the consumer.
Could a new argument be brought forward on the basis that banks's have used Zero Percent offers on borrowings as a means to ensnare (trap) people into a cycle of debt.
That these institutions have not carried out adequate checks either in house, with the borrower concerned, nor with the Credit Reference Agency's to see if that person could afford the debt being offerred at Zero Percent.
And that having lent the money have failed to report to the Credit Reference Agency's a true and accurate position of that borrowers commitments, thereby allowing other firms to lend more money to the borrower - and at the same time permitting the borrower to roll-over that debt over and over again until a point is reached where charges are incurred either by over indebtedness or by change of circumstance such as illness of loss of job.
Whilst consumers must ultimately have responsibility for their own financial situation, there is a strong argument that consumers must be protected from the banks’ sharp practices of trapping them into a cycle of continuous excessive charges.
It should be noted that the above makes no reference to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the services provided in exchange. Such a ‘theme’ does not fall foul of the current interpretation of Regulation 6(2)(b)* and would permit a challenge under section 5 (1)** of the UTCCR Regulations where the onus (proof) would fall on the supplier (lender) to prove that this act was not unfair.
Such an attack being permitted on a European level.
Notes:
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations - Assessment of unfair terms
*6. (2) In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate-
(b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange.
** 5. (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded
as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant
imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the
detriment of the consumer.
Comment